Toby007 has started up no fewer than 15 games on the Antastic! map at the same time, most having single letter names (a, b, c, etc.), and most with 8+ players. It's taking up my entire front page. Do I just get to remove them from my list manually, or is this something that should be handled by a moderator?

Bah, who was the person on WF that would start a lot of Ant games...ohhhh it's on the tip of my brain...
You can remove them manually, dunno what/how it should/would be handled by a moderator (which only tom can do I believe).
Kind of goes back to the Queue and should there be a game limit for players, but it's not too bad currently (and this would still be possible for up to the game limit). Of course when the site grows will this potentially be a bigger problem, although more people would also mean hopefully those games fill up faster.
Still, at least we can see the whole queue and/or remove them so they aren't seen.

Yes the 'hide game' ability is nice but I was hoping for more to come out of that discussion (eventually at least). Limit per host per gameboard, I really never thought the "what if you want to play the same board with diff # of players/settings" argument held much water, and this kid is proving why.

I mean ultimately it's neither THAT much of a bother to see all the games on the homepage and it's not THAT much effort to hide them manually, but still...

thought the queue thing was already in effect?

what is queue and why isn't it in effect?

I almost thought about making him an enemy just so to clear up the page. If I don't want to play the board once what makes it think I want to play it the 11th time I've selected hide this game. I did finally find a simcity match I wanted to join.

I wish I'd thought to make him an enemy, would have been so much faster...

I just joined all of them. It'll be fun making sure he doesn't win any of them. ;-)

The queue is in effect, however it only filters out duplicate games with identical settings (i.e. same board, players per game / teamplay and boot time settings). So in this case as the number of players is varying you're able to see each game. I think it's working really well overall but maybe a little tweaking is in order.

The one thing that I haven't implemented that was suggested is a scheduled task to delete games that hadn't filled after a certain time period had elapsed - I should probably add this in the near future.

tom wrote: The queue is in effect, however it only filters out duplicate games with identical settings (i.e. same board, players per game / teamplay and boot time settings). So in this case as the number of players is varying you're able to see each game. I think it's working really well overall but maybe a little tweaking is in order.

The one thing that I haven't implemented that was suggested is a scheduled task to delete games that hadn't filled after a certain time period had elapsed - I should probably add this in the near future.

Probably a good idea. What are people's thoughts on limiting the number of games you can make in a time period / have in the queue at once (as was mentioned)? I'm really not sure someone needs to have more than 5-6 games in the queue at once, or at least of the same game. Is there a way to limit number of games in the queue of a single map (either by host or overall, the latter of which probably being less desirable unless settings matter)?

tom wrote:
The one thing that I haven't implemented that was suggested is a scheduled task to delete games that hadn't filled after a certain time period had elapsed - I should probably add this in the near future.

I think this is potentially a nice to have, although as it's been said before, it could be confusing that a game gets deleted by the system after a certain time (especially if you want a 16 player game, and down to only needing 1 more player or something).

Also, making a player an enemy shouldn't hide his created games, unless YOU are a Standard member, in which you can't have enemies anyway.  So, it would only work if he makes you his enemy and you are a Standard.  At least I'm fairly certain that's how it should work.

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:
The one thing that I haven't implemented that was suggested is a scheduled task to delete games that hadn't filled after a certain time period had elapsed - I should probably add this in the near future.

I think this is potentially a nice to have, although as it's been said before, it could be confusing that a game gets deleted by the system after a certain time (especially if you want a 16 player game, and down to only needing 1 more player or something).

 

Also, making a player an enemy shouldn't hide his created games, unless YOU are a Standard member, in which you can't have enemies anyway).  So, it would only work if he makes you his enemy and you are a Standard.  At least I'm fairly certain that's how it should work.

Perhaps it can be set to a certain time period since the last join? I guess that still wouldn't entirely fix the problem of only needing one more, but it would give it a little more time to fill up based on the number of people already interested in playing, if you catch my drift.

Vataro wrote: I'm really not sure someone needs to have more than 5-6 games in the queue at once...

Same game perhaps, but asm created quite a few last week and they all filled up relatively fast I believe.  I don't think it would be a bad thing to limit to only 10 open games as Host at a time, but not sure if other restrictions are needed.

What if we limited people to hosting a number of seats instead of a number of games? Something like 50 seats: would cap them to three 16 player games or (gasp!) 25 2 player games. Just a thought. Probably too confusing/obscure, but I thought I'd share.

thats actually not a bad idea cram. cus if they started up a bunch of small games, its likely the queue would filter those out anyway. and really the main holdups are on the large # of player games (like the 'lighting' game with 16 seats open thats been there for like a week!). so a seat cap coupled with the queue and a time limit for open games would cover just about every possibility.

weathertop wrote:

thats actually not a bad idea cram. cus if they started up a bunch of small games, its likely the queue would filter those out anyway. and really the main holdups are on the large # of player games (like the 'lighting' game with 16 seats open thats been there for like a week!). so a seat cap coupled with the queue and a time limit for open games would cover just about every possibility.

That's an Extended game, not Lightning.

Cramchakle wrote: Probably too confusing/obscure

I personally think this, although it's not really that hard of a concept, so either way.

Yertle wrote:

Also, making a player an enemy shouldn't hide his created games, unless YOU are a Standard member, in which you can't have enemies anyway.  So, it would only work if he makes you his enemy and you are a Standard.  At least I'm fairly certain that's how it should work.

I sure hope not, that almost defeats the purpose of the enemy list.  If I don't want to play with a certain player why in green earth can I see the games he's started?

But thanks for pointing that out, now I have to check every game I'm in to make sure General Novak and ObiWan aren't in any of them.

EnixNeo wrote:

Yertle wrote:

Also, making a player an enemy shouldn't hide his created games, unless YOU are a Standard member, in which you can't have enemies anyway.  So, it would only work if he makes you his enemy and you are a Standard.  At least I'm fairly certain that's how it should work.

I sure hope not, that almost defeats the purpose of the enemy list.  If I don't want to play with a certain player why in green earth can I see the games he's started?

Because that's putting a restriction on yourself, not necessarily the other player. 

A warning might be a good idea, but not sure if you shouldn't be able to see the games they are in (I haven't actually used this yet, other than playing around to check the functionality).

tom wrote: The queue is in effect, however it only filters out duplicate games with identical settings (i.e. same board, players per game / teamplay and boot time settings). So in this case as the number of players is varying you're able to see each game. I think it's working really well overall but maybe a little tweaking is in order.

This is exactly what I was referring to. This is pretty clearly A) abuse (malicious or otherwise), and B) something that should be controlled for in the system. I don't see anything wrong with something like 5 Join-phase games hosted on the same board - and 15 Join-phase games hosted overall - per player.

tom wrote:The one thing that I haven't implemented that was suggested is a scheduled task to delete games that hadn't filled after a certain time period had elapsed - I should probably add this in the near future.

I can see this going either way. A hard time limit for filling up might be too harsh, but re-starting the timer whenever somebody joined might not be different from no timer at all. Maybe an integrated system with an initial 5-day period, but if that 5-day timer is within 2 days of expiration and another player joins, it starts a new 2-day timer, restarting again with every new join... with a concrete 14-day cap or something. Or maybe all that's too complicated anyway.

Yertle wrote:

EnixNeo wrote:

Yertle wrote:

Also, making a player an enemy shouldn't hide his created games, unless YOU are a Standard member, in which you can't have enemies anyway.  So, it would only work if he makes you his enemy and you are a Standard.  At least I'm fairly certain that's how it should work.

I sure hope not, that almost defeats the purpose of the enemy list.  If I don't want to play with a certain player why in green earth can I see the games he's started?

Because that's putting a restriction on yourself, not necessarily the other player.

Just about the only way to make it to my enemy list is to collude within a game.  I have absolutely NO reason to want to play with these players.  The decision to not play with these players is the reason they are in my enemy list.  In other words, the "restriction" is on purpose!  The point of the enemy list is to avoid that player.